Linking a few dots together here, but it does seem to be fairly convenient that this weekend in Azerbaijan on a track that is pretty much spot on designed to suit all of Mercedes strengths over Ferrari and RBR that they are suddenly lacking in pace immediately after the FIA increased stringency on burning oil. Of course one data point doesn't make a pattern, so we'll need a few more weeks, but it is interesting at the very least

Linking a few dots together here, but it does seem to be fairly convenient that this weekend in Azerbaijan on a track that is pretty much spot on designed to suit all of Mercedes strengths over Ferrari and RBR that they are suddenly lacking in pace immediately after the FIA increased stringency on burning oil. Of course one data point doesn't make a pattern, so we'll need a few more weeks, but it is interesting at the very least

Linking a few dots together here, but it does seem to be fairly convenient that this weekend in Azerbaijan on a track that is pretty much spot on designed to suit all of Mercedes strengths over Ferrari and RBR that they are suddenly lacking in pace immediately after the FIA increased stringency on burning oil. Of course one data point doesn't make a pattern, so we'll need a few more weeks, but it is interesting at the very least

Apart from the fact it was only FP1 & 2, Mercedes ended up within one tenth of the fastest time, not sure i would call that lacking pace.

Agreed, obviously not calling it already, simply pointing out what COULD be an emerging link between the two. We obviously have to wait and see. However that tenth of the pace is much worst than seems as this track could practically have been designed to make the most of Mercedes strengths. It is simply brake points, slow 90 degree turns and straights meaning they should be making ground around the entire lap... As of so far, they're not at all doing that.

Linking a few dots together here, but it does seem to be fairly convenient that this weekend in Azerbaijan on a track that is pretty much spot on designed to suit all of Mercedes strengths over Ferrari and RBR that they are suddenly lacking in pace immediately after the FIA increased stringency on burning oil. Of course one data point doesn't make a pattern, so we'll need a few more weeks, but it is interesting at the very least

Apart from the fact it was only FP1 & 2, Mercedes ended up within one tenth of the fastest time, not sure i would call that lacking pace.

Agreed, obviously not calling it already, simply pointing out what COULD be an emerging link between the two. We obviously have to wait and see. However that tenth of the pace is much worst than seems as this track could practically have been designed to make the most of Mercedes strengths. It is simply brake points, slow 90 degree turns and straights meaning they should be making ground around the entire lap... As of so far, they're not at all doing that.

I would be keeping a close eye on the Q2 -> Q3 times, i have no doubt these big oil companies could certainly figure out how to add some chemicals to the oil to facilitate this but it's certainly not something mercedes could use for long periods of time. I don't know how they could hide that much oil unless it was only used in very short bursts like say for a Q3 boost mode. I just don't see how they could have enough oil on-board to burn for long periods of time which is what it would take for them to have an advantage for an entire practice session.

I would expect that they only use it for qualifying and as a boost for in/out laps and overtaking if it is an actual thing. The fact that Mercedes wanted the allowable burn over a race to be 5L makes me question it more than anything. All you need to do is watch a few videos of diesel runaway to see how much energy is in oil and that's oil designed specifically NOT to burn

Sky and AMuS are saying that it's in fact a Mercedes prompted closer look on oil burning because of Ferrari, they were talking about it yesterday.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

In qualifying, Mercedes' difference to the next car is bigger than last year, and the gap to Ferrari the same - in a year where Ferrari have been demonstrating a similar pace. What does this mean for the data point?

That did a complete 180 over night. Mercedes put in its strongest performance of the season and at 2014-2016 levels of dominance and news agencies are reporting that Mercedes have asked for Ferrari to be looked at in terms of oil burn.

Certainly flips the suspected narrative on its head. I'd wait and see what happens in the next few races to be sure though, could well be a tyre issue on this track as the Ferrari has shown to be kinder on its tyres thus far, and that could lead to warm up issues on a track where getting them up to temperature is proving an issue.

The FIA have all but admitted they can't catch them in the act under current techniques and have taken steps to "ensure" they can next year.

Dunno if Ferrari were pushing their luck doing something with an extra tank or differing additives but it seems Mercedes worked it out or were told by Allison and the FIA clamped down on it.

There's been a reluctance to throw this in the spotlight and make a bigger deal of it from seemingly everyone since it was first rumoured Mercedes were doing it in winter 2014/15 so I'm not expecting much to change.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

OK, interesting article well written, right up to the bit where they effectively say that the '3D printed piston' is a game changer. can anyone explain whatit is and how it works please.

I don't work in the manufacturing industry at all, and certainly not engines - so I'm just guessing here. But I would assume the difference is that a 3D printed part doesn't need molds or seams or anything, and it hasn't been weakened by being machined from a solid block. It's basically a monolithic part of exactly the right shape, which I assume means it's stronger.

The other possibility is that people are just hopping onto the 3D printing hype train. I personally think a lot of people are doing that right now.

OK, interesting article well written, right up to the bit where they effectively say that the '3D printed piston' is a game changer. can anyone explain whatit is and how it works please.

I don't work in the manufacturing industry at all, and certainly not engines - so I'm just guessing here. But I would assume the difference is that a 3D printed part doesn't need molds or seams or anything, and it hasn't been weakened by being machined from a solid block. It's basically a monolithic part of exactly the right shape, which I assume means it's stronger.

The other possibility is that people are just hopping onto the 3D printing hype train. I personally think a lot of people are doing that right now.

I think they use 3D printing mainly to give very accurately sized oil galleries and pathways within the body of the piston, to aid distribution of the oil into the combustion chamber. This is difficult to achieve with conventional casting or forging techniques.

Slightly off topic but the article suggests both Ferrari drivers have used 4 turbo chargers. Does that mean a completely new unit would incur a 5 place penalty? Of course they may just introduce new parts with the current turbos but just curious?

Slightly off topic but the article suggests both Ferrari drivers have used 4 turbo chargers. Does that mean a completely new unit would incur a 5 place penalty? Of course they may just introduce new parts with the current turbos but just curious?

Yes, they used the 4th back in Spain.

Ferrari have stated they are on track to just use the 4 for the year, as none of them have failed, they were taken out for precaution at the time and will be rotated until the end of the season.

I have no idea if that's true or not but Spa would have been the perfect place to take the penalty and they didn't so I think they mean it when they say they shouldn't have to take a 5th turbo. Unless they are holding out for an upgraded one which wasn't ready for Spa.

OK, interesting article well written, right up to the bit where they effectively say that the '3D printed piston' is a game changer. can anyone explain whatit is and how it works please.

I don't work in the manufacturing industry at all, and certainly not engines - so I'm just guessing here. But I would assume the difference is that a 3D printed part doesn't need molds or seams or anything, and it hasn't been weakened by being machined from a solid block. It's basically a monolithic part of exactly the right shape, which I assume means it's stronger.

The other possibility is that people are just hopping onto the 3D printing hype train. I personally think a lot of people are doing that right now.

I think they use 3D printing mainly to give very accurately sized oil galleries and pathways within the body of the piston, to aid distribution of the oil into the combustion chamber. This is difficult to achieve with conventional casting or forging techniques.

OK, that is a great help, so is it the better distribution of oil simply for lubrication or as a way of introducing the additives or combustion. If we assume it is the latter would that really be a game changer in engine performance?

OK, interesting article well written, right up to the bit where they effectively say that the '3D printed piston' is a game changer. can anyone explain whatit is and how it works please.

I don't work in the manufacturing industry at all, and certainly not engines - so I'm just guessing here. But I would assume the difference is that a 3D printed part doesn't need molds or seams or anything, and it hasn't been weakened by being machined from a solid block. It's basically a monolithic part of exactly the right shape, which I assume means it's stronger.

The other possibility is that people are just hopping onto the 3D printing hype train. I personally think a lot of people are doing that right now.

I think they use 3D printing mainly to give very accurately sized oil galleries and pathways within the body of the piston, to aid distribution of the oil into the combustion chamber. This is difficult to achieve with conventional casting or forging techniques.

OK, that is a great help, so is it the better distribution of oil simply for lubrication or as a way of introducing the additives or combustion. If we assume it is the latter would that really be a game changer in engine performance?

What I think, and it it pure out of my head, not Ferrari's, is that there are several advantages. As above, they can include galleries and vents that are 'blind', size and size difference is more control, and there can be an 'impossible' mix of materials.

Thickness can be added or removed in a particular place, in a sealed chamber for instances where that does not need to be a drilling to get to it as it would if made normally. Also, but may not be the primary reason, as Ply wood is stronger and less liable to warp than board, the 'grain' is layed in a random manner so effects can be controlled. I dont know if it effects the oil to combustion though as they need that tightly controlled and has to have some sort of switch so it only 'flows' when needed or it would have high usage all the time ad the amount would then be tiny

The biggest issue with 3D printed metal materials is that, unless something has changed, you don't get the full crystalline structure that you get with cast or forged metals within the piece. While it might make it possible to make the pistons with features that couldn't be done with casting or machining I'd worry about strength and durability.

The biggest issue with 3D printed metal materials is that, unless something has changed, you don't get the full crystalline structure that you get with cast or forged metals within the piece. While it might make it possible to make the pistons with features that couldn't be done with casting or machining I'd worry about strength and durability.

I do not know the tec details, but apparently they do not get the 'crumble' any more. It used to be a problem, but 'think' it is down the the heat cycle that gets it close enough to particle welding. TBH I have not seen a sintering machine in use for a couple of years and am behind the times now I am retired.

Added. Also they use smaller passes now. Some layers really down in the microscopic range.

So presumably the only reason these pistons are not being used in the engine is because of potential failure. Have pistons manufactured in this way been used in lower formula to establish reliability?

I cannot answer that, because as I said, I have been 'out of the loop' for a couple of years. All I can say for cert is they have been in Marine engines for a while with no problem (as far as I am aware). These run 24 hr 7 days, but do not have the rapid rev change a race engine would.